Preconditions of Intelligibility

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Nate,

When Civbert wrote this:

If there is no God, logic is still part of reality.

You should just stop. It's just utter nonsense and the rest follows...

I don't even grant "reality" without God...

And the non-believer will say to you - just stop there. There's no point on going on because you are merely making assertions and not giving arguments.

I thought you were a believer. I never assert or assume anything apart from the knowledge that there is a God. I don't assume He isn't simply because I want to make my argument acceptable.

When a fellow believer states that God is not necessary for logic then I state, unequivocally, IT IS NONSENSE. When I agree with the Scriptures that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" I don't care in the least whether or not you, or anyone else, accept the authority of that teaching.

That you answer as an unbeliever would is very shocking.

Originally posted by SemperFideles
...but Civbert grants not only reality but logic as well. Apparently, neither reality nor logic depend upon God.

Give the counter argument in proper syllogistic form that proves that God is necessary for logic. It should be easy. Remember, you're debating a non-believer, not a fellow Christian. If you're are going to say it's an obvious conclusion, (logic and reality depend on the existence of God), then the argument for that conclusion should be easy to construct.

However, if this is an assertion (which it is), then you should be able to give some other reasons for making the assertion (i.e. you can't prove it logically, but you believe it's true for reason x, y, and z.)

But here's the best you can honestly do. If God exists, then reality is logically dependent on God. If God does not exist, then reality does not depend on God. Reality depends on God, only if the Bible is true. However, that's a hypothetical proposition. It can not be proven, and the assertion needs to be justified. The non-believer is within his epistemic rights to reject that position out of hand if you merely assert it and not give any reasons to support it. If you give inductive evidence, the non-believer may do the same.

The bottom line is, if you are going to play by the rules of reason, your opponent should be allowed the same consideration.

Again, I assume I'm talking to a believer here who knows that God created the Universe.

Do you believe in God? Does anything exist apart from Him?

Get off your hobby horse and speak to me as a believer!

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

I thought you were a believer. I never assert or assume anything apart from the knowledge that there is a God. I don't assume He isn't simply because I want to make my argument acceptable.
....

Get off your hobby horse and speak to me as a believer!

Come on Rich! The issue is apologetics. The whole point of apologetics is to defend the faith against other worldviews. We are dealing with the views of unbelievers - not fellow Christians. You need to be able to understand what different worldviews entail, and who your audience is. We're not preaching to the choir, we are debating with a unbeliever who already rejects many of your presuppositions. You don't just ignore that, you deal with it directly. That's what I'm trying to do here. So read my post in that light, and then come back with something relevant.

When you are debating your position with an unbeliever - if you are going to act like he's a fellow Christian, then you might as well have stayed home. You're wasting his time and yours.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My problem, Anthony, is that I expect an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic. You presented that as your view. If you're speaking as pagan would then say "But the pagan would say to you...." You don't do that, you repeatedly put that forward as your view that logic doesn't require God as if you don't believe He created the world and everything in it. It's just a very strange assumption to hear, repeatedly, from a Christian.

Further, I don't very much care that the unbeliever rejects my presuppositions. I cannot very well agree with him that his materialistic view of the universe is a valid starting point. I don't engage in philosophical debates with unbelievers anyhow and I don't see a pattern for it in the NT. Over and over, Paul and the other apostles, present Christ as the Son of the Living God who has died and risen for the forgiveness of sins. They then command people to obey. Many Sophists at Athens ridiculed him but it was not because he "respected" their worldview that some embraced the Gospel.

If somebody challenges me to defend the hope that lives within me then I defend it based on what I know to be True. I will speak in vernacular they understand but I will never compromise and grant that the Universe and everything in it just might not be created and that the worldview they form as a security blanket to suppress the Truth has any validity.

The Gospel is not True because we build a logical argument that satifies man's existential rational test before he submits. The Gospel is "Believe and Live" or "Remain in your Unbelief but you will bow the knee...."

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
My problem, Anthony, is that I expect an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic.

I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim. There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means. Worse, the premise is question begging when used in any argument in support of Christianity as a worldview. It has no valid place in apologetics, and it has no beneficial implication within theology. It's bad logic and bad apologetics. It's a pietistic claim that appeals to us because anything that makes Christianity seem right, must be right.

[Edited on 5-24-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

"In Him we live, and move, and have our being..."

Take your complaint up with Paul.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Beside the fact that his talk is just like a pagan.

Seriously, I'd like one example where any prophet or Apostle grants any reality apart from God. The very first words of Scripture begin with God.

The Shema makes declarations that God is one and must be worshipped.

Your speech, while it may impress others, does not impress me in the least. It is un-Biblical plain and simple. It is not a speech that can be found in Scripture or deduced from any apologetic example given in the Scriptures.

[Edited on 5-24-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles
My problem, Anthony, is that I expect an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic.

I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim. There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means. Worse, the premise is question begging when used in any argument in support of Christianity as a worldview. It has no valid place in apologetics, and it has no beneficial implication within theology. It's bad logic and bad apologetics. It's a pietistic claim that appeals to us because anything that makes Christianity seem right, must be right.

Anthony,

I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles
My problem, Anthony, is that I expect an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic.

I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim. There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means. Worse, the premise is question begging when used in any argument in support of Christianity as a worldview. It has no valid place in apologetics, and it has no beneficial implication within theology. It's bad logic and bad apologetics. It's a pietistic claim that appeals to us because anything that makes Christianity seem right, must be right.

Anthony,

I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.

THANK YOU!!! I was beginning to fear that this was a tightly held Clarkian belief. His assertion is completely un-Scriptural and I wondered if some Clarkians feel compelled to defend their logical standards so vigorously that they'll abandon the Scriptures just to ensure they don't step away.

Seriously, Jeff, if not for you jumping in, I was losing all hope for Clark's disciples. I wasn't even going to read his stuff if I thought it would ever lead me to a point where I came to the point that I stated that God was not necessary for logic.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles
My problem, Anthony, is that I expect an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic.

I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim. There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means. Worse, the premise is question begging when used in any argument in support of Christianity as a worldview. It has no valid place in apologetics, and it has no beneficial implication within theology. It's bad logic and bad apologetics. It's a pietistic claim that appeals to us because anything that makes Christianity seem right, must be right.

Anthony,

I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.

From within my worldview, I believe the being created in God's image means we were created with the ability to think logically and communicate with God. I think this ability for abstract reasoning is (at least part) what it means to be created in God's image. And in that sense, or capacity for reason depends on God being our creator.

However, this is completely within the Christian worldview. I can only deduce this by assuming the axioms of Christianity. But if I did not accept them, there is not logically chain that ties God to the laws of logic. There is not syllogism that can be constructed that proves that without God, there can be no logic.

I don't think you can prove the mere existence of anything requires the existence of something else, unless it is by definition. If it is by definition, it is a tautology. That is, you can not say that A exits, therefore B exists, unless "all (or some) A is B" is true.

"Existence" as a predicate is meaningless. The only things that do not exist are true contradictions. Existence is only a matter of how you define something, or what is predicated of something.

So you can not say God exists is logically necessary for logic to exists, unless logic is God. You can not say "p & ~p is false" implies God exists. If you think about it, God is not the predicate of any logical statement, He is always the logical subject. The only way to make God the predicate is in the statement "God is God".

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Anthony,

I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.

THANK YOU!!! I was beginning to fear that this was a tightly held Clarkian belief. His assertion is completely un-Scriptural and I wondered if some Clarkians feel compelled to defend their logical standards so vigorously that they'll abandon the Scriptures just to ensure they don't step away.

Seriously, Jeff, if not for you jumping in, I was losing all hope for Clark's disciples. I wasn't even going to read his stuff if I thought it would ever lead me to a point where I came to the point that I stated that God was not necessary for logic.

Please provide the Scriptural support for "God is necessary for logic". You did say my position is *completely* un-scriptural, so I'm assuming you can defend that from Scripture.



[Edited on 5-25-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Genesis 1:1

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Anthony,

I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.

THANK YOU!!! I was beginning to fear that this was a tightly held Clarkian belief. His assertion is completely un-Scriptural and I wondered if some Clarkians feel compelled to defend their logical standards so vigorously that they'll abandon the Scriptures just to ensure they don't step away.

Seriously, Jeff, if not for you jumping in, I was losing all hope for Clark's disciples. I wasn't even going to read his stuff if I thought it would ever lead me to a point where I came to the point that I stated that God was not necessary for logic.

Please provide the Scriptural support for "God is necessary for logic". You did say my position is *completely* un-scriptural, so I'm assuming you can defend that from Scripture.

Anthony,

Surely you believe that part of the image of God in man is logic, don't you? If so, then logic is dependant upon God. If not, we can start a new thread and debate it.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Anthony,

Surely you believe that part of the image of God in man is logic, don't you? If so, then logic is dependent upon God. If not, we can start a new thread and debate it.

Yes, if you mean by logic "the capacity for logical thinking," then that capacity depends on God. And you can only show that by assuming the Christian worldview. Therefore, making the claim (logic depends on God) in an apologetic debate is begging the question.

But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because the claim itself presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.

We can start a new thread on this subject.



[Edited on 5-25-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Genesis 1:1

Nope.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Anthony likes to play "give me the syllogism." Okay, me too:

(let's also remember that for Anthony to *know* anything he must deduce it from Scriptural propositions)

I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim.

Prove it.

Tell me how you *know* this.

See my reply to Jeff. Logic is not God.

Originally posted by Paul manata

There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means.

Prove it.

Tell me how you *know* this.

Done. See my reply to Jeff. Logic is not God.

Originally posted by Paul manata


Also, Anthony, do you believe that "God is logic?"

Nope, not literally. It might be a true metaphor, like "God is love". God is not literally love, nor is He literally logic, but love and logic are both characteristics of God.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Civbert
But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because the claim itself presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.

What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert
But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because the claim itself presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.

What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."

Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert
But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because the claim itself presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.

What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."

Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).

I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert
But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because the claim itself presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.

What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."

Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).

I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?

What do you mean by the term depend? Let's say it was possible for God to blow up and stop existing. Would the laws of logic stop existing as well?

CT

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert
But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because the claim itself presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.

What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."

Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).

I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?

What do you mean by the term depend? Let's say it was possible for God to blow up and stop existing. Would the laws of logic stop existing as well?

CT

Talk about contradictory statements! By "depend", I mean it is impossible to account for logic without pressuposing God. One could also say that the rules themselves "depend" on God as our existence does. "

In him, we live, and move and have our being.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert
But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because the claim itself presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.

What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."

Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).

I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?

What do you mean by the term depend? Let's say it was possible for God to blow up and stop existing. Would the laws of logic stop existing as well?

CT

Talk about contradictory statements! By "depend", I mean it is impossible to account for logic without pressuposing God. One could also say that the rules themselves "depend" on God as our existence does. "

In him, we live, and move and have our being.

Well it only be contradictory depending on how one uses the term possible ;-)

Now I agree that the rules themselves depend on God as we do, but one should understand that one is then put into a great minority position as far as philosophers go.

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Genesis 1:1

Nope.

Honestly, at this point then, based on the way in which you respond (which is pagan) I am left with two choices regarding your denial of God as necessary for all:

1. Proverbs 26:4
2. Proverbs 26:5

By the way, I'm still waiting on what I demanded long ago in this thread: Provide us with any kind of pattern in the Prophets or the Gospels or the Epistles where apologetics gave away that God is not necessary for all. There is a notable lack of Scripture in your posts. I'd settle for a single example where a Christian character even remotely resembles what you affirm is proper apologetics.

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?

Everything that God created, clearly depend on the creator. Everything that God commands, came from God. So did God create the universal laws? What laws would these be? Would these be laws of physics? I'll buy that. The laws of physics depend on God. They did not exist until God created the world and everything in it. What about God's commands - sure, they did not exist until God gave them. Now consider some other things: love, justice, glory, logic, power. Each of these are characteristics of God. Did God create them? No. Do they have a beginning? No. Do they depend on God? We can not say.

If something is real with God, how can we say they would be un-real without Him. These things are not created, they have no physical substance. We do not know if these things depend on God because we can not say all love is God, or all God is love except in a metaphorical sense. God is not the same as love. When we say God is love, we mean love is a characteristic of God. If we say love is God, we make love an object of worship instead of the God of Scripture.

Since we do not say God is a subset of these things, or that these things are subsets of God, then they do not logically depend on the existence God. We can not say that logic or love or justice depends on the existence of God. Either God exists, or he doesn't. Either love is real or not. Either logic is, or reason is an illusion.

As I think about this, I'd say to look at it this way. For something to depend on something else, it would either have to be caused by that thing (as in created), or it would have to be a logical subset (of the same category). Since God did not create love or logic (else He was not loving or logical before the creation), and since love (or logic) and God are categorically different things (and neither is a subset of the other) then neither depends on the other in a logical or ontological sense.

And all this is speaking in terms of worldviews. From withing the Christian worldview, Scripture tells me that I can only truly act in love by the power of the Holy Spirit, and my ability to reason is due to being created in His image. But this knowledge depends only on the axiom of Scripture, and the Holy Spirit enable my mind to believe. I can not know these things if I start with some other axiom, because I can no deduce them otherwise.

And it's good and wonderful to say I will not give and ground on Scripture, it's a waste of time to tell talk to an unbeliever as if he were a believer. We are to be all things to all people. We don't change out axioms, but we try to understand others. You can't rationally defend Christianity to an unbeliever if you reason with him as if he were a believer. And we are supposed to be able to do that - to give an answer for our faith.

We want to be very clear in our thinking. We say all men are sinners - but we don't mean Jesus was a sinner. We say God created all things - but that does not mean he created himself. We say God can do all things - but that does not mean he can create a rock too large for for him to lift. We say God knows all things - but he can not know a true contradiction. We can still say many things, but we need to be able to correctly qualify what we mean when we say them - and not to make categorical or logical mistakes, or over generalize, or irrational inferences.

 

[Civbert]

I'd be interested in someone listing the "universal laws".

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Genesis 1:1

Nope.

Honestly, at this point then, based on the way in which you respond (which is pagan) I am left with two choices regarding your denial of God as necessary for all:

1. Proverbs 26:4
2. Proverbs 26:5

By the way, I'm still waiting on what I demanded long ago in this thread: Provide us with any kind of pattern in the Prophets or the Gospels or the Epistles where apologetics gave away that God is not necessary for all. There is a notable lack of Scripture in your posts. I'd settle for a single example where a Christian character even remotely resembles what you affirm is proper apologetics.

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by SemperFideles]

See the last paragraph in my response to Jeff regarding "all things" - God knows all things, is all powerful, is all loving - but it's a sin to over-generalize these statements to make them mean what God's word does not mean. Else you have no answer for the fool who says, if the Bible says all men have sinned, and Jesus was a man, then Jesus sinned. Are you willing to concede such a point?

As for Scripture usage, if you want to call me a fool, go ahead, but I think you might be more careful in you application of Scripture. It's one thing to try to correct a brother's errors in love, it's another to insult a brother's character using God's Holy Word. The verses you gave were not spoken to the fool, but to someone who is trying to be wise in he's dealing with fools. The proper application then might be if I was seeking you for advise on how to deal with a foolish person, then you would reference those verses. It seems to me that you are using the verse to say you think I'm a fool. Even if you are correct, you have miss-used God's Word.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Civbert
I'd be interested in someone listing the "universal laws".

How about the law of contradiction for one.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Civbert
I'd be interested in someone listing the "universal laws".

How about the law of contradiction for one.

Any others? That's one I'm sure of, that isn't explicit in Scripture, but is necessary for language and knowledge.

God's decrees are universal laws. But are there any others? Are there any laws of the physical universe that we really know?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by Paul manata
Anthony likes to play "give me the syllogism." Okay, me too:

(let's also remember that for Anthony to *know* anything he must deduce it from Scriptural propositions)

I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim.

Prove it.

Tell me how you *know* this.

See my reply to Jeff. Logic is not God.

Originally posted by Paul manata

There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means.

Prove it.

Tell me how you *know* this.

Done. See my reply to Jeff. Logic is not God.

Originally posted by Paul manata


Also, Anthony, do you believe that "God is logic?"

Nope, not literally. It might be a true metaphor, like "God is love". God is not literally love, nor is He literally logic, but love and logic are both characteristics of God.

Uhh, Civbert...

I asked more questions that "is God logic."

You made CLAIMS. I askeds you to prove them and how you knew them. Nowhere did you lay out a formal argument, using propositions in scripture, or deduced from scripture, which showed that you KNEW and PROVED your claims.

So, care to try again?

If you don't KNOW that God is not necessary for logic, then it's simply your subjective opinion, unjustified opinion.

As long as you come clean that you're just giving your opinion in this thread, then I'm fine with that.

You want you cake and to eat it too. But now it's time to see where Scripturalism lands you.

Well since God and logic are not the same categories, then the statement (God is logic) is not a logical proposition, it's a metaphor. But if you want me to point to all the Scripture verses that explain what God is, and is not, and which are metaphors and which are literal, I can do that. But I think you could find them yourself. You see the difference between a metaphor and a literal statement? And you do understand that the substance of God can not be an abstraction. Love and logic are not persons, God is a person.

Here:

*God is a person.
*No person is an abstract concept.
*Therefore, God is not an abstract concept.

*Logic is an abstract concept.
*Therefore God is not logic.

We can look up scripture verses for showing God is a person. You can also dispute the logic is in the category person or that the bible supports categorical errors.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata
The logic is God was one question I asked you. I thought you held that view. I don't, you don't, good. You've been barking up the wrong tree, here.

But, you're still missing the point. You said,

"I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim."

I asked how you knew that and for you to prove it.

I explained that already. Here it is again:

Originally posted by Civbert

Well since God and logic are not the same categories, then the statement (God is logic) is not a logical proposition, it's a metaphor. But if you want me to point to all the Scripture verses that explain what God is, and is not, and which are metaphors and which are literal, I can do that. But I think you could find them yourself. You see the difference between a metaphor and a literal statement? And you do understand that the substance of God can not be an abstraction. Love and logic are not persons, God is a person.

Originally posted by Paul manata
You said,

"There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means."

I asked how you knew that and for you to prove it.

Here's the proof again:

Originally posted by Civbert

*God is a person.
*No person is an abstract concept.
*Therefore, God is not an abstract concept.

*Logic is an abstract concept.
*Therefore God is not logic.

Originally posted by Paul manata

as a p.s. do concepts exist in minds?

Depends on what you mean by exist. Do you mean, "is a concept or idea like the law of contradiction true only because we know it" - I don't think so. It's similar to the tree falling in a forest, but know one is around to hear it. I don't think anyone needs to be around for it to make a sound, no does there need to be any minds for the law of contradiction to be true. However, the law of contradiction may be an excepting. I can't imagine the concept of justice having any meaning if there was no mind to consider it. But then take the concept of lenght. Would the length of a stick not exist if no one measured it?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata
as another p.s. how do you *know* that logic is an abstract cncept?

Is that deducible from Scriptural propositions? If so, deduce on, G-money.

The only way for a person know what a person said or wrote, is if the law of contradiction is true.

Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself."
(Gen 3:9-10 NKJV)

God asked a question of Adam, and Adam understood God and answered.

Adam understood what God said because the words had meaning. But if words do not have meaning, then Adam could have answer "I'd like a pepperoni pizza with mushrooms."

Another way to deduce the law of contradiction from Scripture is by reading the Bible. Read Gen 3:9-10 again. Did you understand it? Then you prove the law of contradiction from Scripture.

So now that we we have proven the law of contradiction is true, how do we know it is an abstract concept? Well can you touch it? Is it an individual? Can you know it? If you answered these correctly, then you know by definition that it is an abstract concept.